Nature Photography

[Kilt]

I just got my first digital camera today.

Part of the justification was to do nature photography. This is one whopper of a justification, because I also used it (in part) to buy a top of the line Mac computer and a ton of Adobe software. How could I pass up this package from the Apple education store: full versions of the latest Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, InDesign, GoLive, and LiveMotion......all for $399. That's $200 less than Photoshop alone.

Anyway, now I got all this powerful computer stuff and a fancy camera with buttons and menus up the gazoo and I barely know how to turn anything on. I'm sure I'll never use half this stuff and probably be unable to figure out the other half. But what's a hobby for, if not to waste money and time.

I've been putting my photo interest off too long. The death of Galen Rowell affected me because I met him 20 years ago before he became really famous. For those of you who don't know, he was possibly the greatest mountain photographer since Ansel Adams. He started out as a bona fide mountain and rock climber, taking magical photos while dangling off the noses of Half Dome, Whitney and Everest. He and his wife died in a light plane crash a few months ago. He leaves behind a legacy of a million beatiful pictures. What creative thing will I leave behind. Nothing, so far.

Thus photography. Hopefully, I can take some decent shots, improve my technique, fool around with sinful post-processing, and put pictures up on my own website for my scattered family to see. I'm probably going to need some telephoto and macro capability to get serious with nature.

This is just a rambling way of inquiring whether anyone out there has interest or expertise in nature photography they would like to share in the future.

[Ranchman]

I enjoy snapping some photos every so often as well. I have a digital camera I use for "fun" stuff, but generally use my SLR if I'm going to take a bit more 'serious' pics (seems that everyone now days makes a SLR/Digital hybrid - e.g. you can use SLR lenses. It would sure be nice to see how things would turn out instead of having to wait to get the film back like I do now... [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img] )

Anywho, I enjoy it, even if I'm not that good - but that goes for a lot of things in life! [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

What kind of camera did you get?

[Gatorboy]

I bought my Fuji FinePix 6900 in June of 2001 and have taken over 4000 pictures with it -- I have not once taken a picture with my film camera since that day, and I probably never will.

I am wondering if film is going to be equivalent to vinyl records? I think there will be of course a definite use for film, but that market will be very small compared to digital photography.

[rmorgan]

Morning, Ranchman. I anted up for a digital SLR a couple of months ago, as the cost has dropped from ludicrous to merely ridiculous. Some of the results, all but one or two taken right around the house or at the Hindu temple next door, are here. These cameras require much more attention than a point-and-shoot digital, in particular occasional cleaning of the CCD, but being able to change lenses, use extension tubes, etc. with digital is wonderful, as well as your point about no waiting and no film/processing costs. If you see something you like, you can take 50 pictures of it and delete 49 of them (or all 50 [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] )! Another caution is that there is a good bit more computer work needed to get the best possible images, because the cameras are not optimized to a "common denominator" like the p&s cameras are. BTW, Sigma is coming out with a digital SLR by the end of the year which will be significantly cheaper than the Canon/Fuji/Nikon models out now, although it will use only Sigma's proprietary lens mounts.

[Ranchman]

Very nice! I saw from your postings on Pbase that you got a Nikon D100. Sure seems to take great pics! (all assume the operator is OK as well! [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] ) I'd sure like to have a digital SLR, but I'll probably wait a little longer and let prices fall a bit more (like everything else electronic, I assume it they'll continue to "fall like a rock.") Since I've got EOS lenses, I'll probably go with another Canon.

Speaking of lenses, what lenses are you currently using? I have a Canon A2E I got several years back and have had pretty good luck with a Tamron for my zoom stuff and a Sigma for the "everyday" stuff - not high dollar lenses by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I've been pretty happy with them. (I have a Tokina for wide angle stuff, but I rarely use it.) I used the info on this site to help me choose my lenses. (Basically, I made a spreadsheet comparing performance of all the lenses of a particular type <e.g. 300mm zoom telephotos> and cross referenced it with current prices to pick the "best" ones for the money. )

Recently I've been playing with a 2X teleconverter on the Tamron lens and it's been pretty neat. (I know, that's "cheating" and I should just buy better optics in the first place... [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] ) I've been able to get some macro-type closeups of animals WAAAAYYY away from me @ 600mm.

I've done some night shots of fireworks & such, but would like to get some good star pics. I've yet to find a nice little chart (for free) that gives some basic info on lens speed/aperture/film speed combinations that would work, so its all been trial & error so far. Any ideas on where I could get such a chart?

[TimSullivan]

You will find yourself with a large number of files soon. My advice is set up a good system to store your pictures. The digital camera will allow you to really enjoy the fruits of your efforts.

I have been shooting nature shots just on our land but already have a large collection. Please share some of you pictures.

[idaho04]

Good topic. I like to do nature photography as well. I have a digital camera, Canon 2.0 Megapixels, makes nice pictures but for the nature, the lens is not enough so I am using my Nikon SLR with 300MM lens. I wish I could afford the digital Nikon or Canon with interchangeable lenses so I can use my lenses from the SLR. But these cameras are at least $2,000. You did not get one of those, did you?

[Mosey]

Nature photography is fun and challenging. I used to be hunter, but gave that up when I realized that what I enjoyed about hunting was being outdoors and seeing the wildlife. What I didn't enjoy about it was the mess I had to deal with once I killed something. Gutting a deer just isn't fun! So, I switched to just observing and taking pictures. I still wear camouflage and use the same techniques I used to use for bow hunting deer, but now I just take pictures.

While I was still making the transition from hunter to observer/photographer I took a good close up picture of a deer about 2 weeks before bow season started (I always scouted for deer a few weeks before season started). I killed the same deer on opening day! So, I have a before (alive) and after (dead) picture of that deer.

I may take up hunting again if they eat any of my newly planted and tediously cared for white pine trees though!

[rmorgan]

Thanks for the kind words, Ranchman. I've been having a ball with the camera--back to basics like f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, depth of field, etc., which P&S does for you; plus, NO shutter lag!! The Canon DSLRs look great, but if I were you and I could control myself, I'd wait awhile too--I suspect that prices will be down 15-20% by the first of the year. I went with Nikon for no good reason (my film SLR stuff is Ricoh), except that it was easier to get at the time (mid-August). Really, the Fuji looks like the cream of the crop right now, but the differences between the three are negligible, as they've always been with SLRs. As to lenses--18-35, 28-105, and 80-400 (with vibration reduction [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img] ). Thanks for the website link--that looks like good information re. lens selection.

There is a "multiplier" with the lenses on a digital body, because the cameras pick up on a smaller area than the film bodies and so only use the center 3/4 or so of the lenses, so the lenses seem to be half again as long as they really are. [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img] This is fun with the long ones--the 80-400 acts like it's a 120-600, and with a 2x pretends to be 240-1200--and a pain with the short ones, as you lose decent wide-angle capabilities.

As to astronomy pictures, have you seen this site, Astronomy Picture of the Day ? It doesn't have shooting information, but is mighty neat. I haven't seen a table like you asked about, but here is a link to a site which talks about technique for shooting Hale Bopp, along with some comments from others.

[dlabrie]

....in particular occasional cleaning of the CCD....

What is this? and what is involved in doing it?
David